Mr_Orion

It\'s pretty easy to actually land without RCS, as long as you take your time. The craft has more than enough fuel to hover and make tiny adjustments, so you just need to remember not to try and land too quickly. I\'m pretty surprised that you managed to destroy it in such a way that they lived, but can\'t get home! The return stage has more than enough fuel to get back... you must\'ve landed really awkwardly to damage the return stage!

Hehe, actually found that comment pretty funny; it\'s the Kerbal way (usually), after all. Though, they were using a much earlier version of KSP, from the video, which was a version or few behind when they actually added moving control surfaces.

Thanks about the compliments with the lander! I ran out of rcs fuel just before landing though, due to being a bit impatient with turning while in orbit. Actually, I\'m not 100% sure but I think that\'s actually my old lander design. My new one is a little lighter and has the ability to leave the older stage behind on the mun\'s surface due to using a stack decoupler instead of 3 radial decouplers. I wouldn\'t mind having a south pole crator base, but I\'m a little afraid the crator may be patched out (as well at the sharp hills at the north pole) since it\'s apparently a problem with the current terrain generator. If the votes for the South Pole crators overall, I\'d happily re-fly there (I have enough fuel, after all!). Otherwise, we could challenge ourselves and attempt to land at the north pole, though that\'d be so difficult it probably isn\'t worth the effort and it would help in fixing the lag issue because most people would go to Alpha anyways. The problem with the poles is that they require a lot more Delta-v to reach, so it\'s still easier to land at Alpha. We might need another equatorial base for the newer players.

I think we should be able to change vessel\'s draw distance. I don\'t mean whether or not they are on-rails, just the draw distance; they can disappear rather jarringly. Another, more elegant and efficient option would be to have 2d imposters that appear after the 3d models are gone (so basically, you just see a sprite), and then even further away, just turn it into a point of light or a glow.

It\'s pretty difficult to get to, as is requires a plane change, but also when landing you need to land at almost exactly the middle or you slide down the sides. It\'s probably easier now that I have my main ship there to reference against, though. Also, my ship is really quite big (21.5 fuel tanks and 11 engines, including the return stage), so it makes a good base center.

I\'d love to grab a slot for the stock base. Is it ok if I start a second Mun Base in a rather interesting place (I\'m not thinking of a munolith, just so you know)? It\'s somewhat more difficult and requires a little more Delta V to get there, and landing can be painful, but it\'s a really nice area.

He did capitalize. VITOR 1 starts with caps, the next word doesn\'t need them. Also, he got his spelling rather well, and 'mah' was obviously intentional... If anything, I\'d ask him to re-read his second sentence as it doesn\'t make much sense. Currently it is: 'VITOR 1 named after the PM of the KU VITOR KERMAN the probe is used for looking at distant objects and other fancy-schmancy stuff @ It should be: 'VITOR 1 is named after Ku Vitor Kerman. The probe is used for looking at distant objects and other fancy-schmancy stuff .' Sorry, I\'m just annoyed by people who try to look clever by going into a thread, then giving no actual opinion of the craft, instead just accusing people of spelling wrong... : About the probe, it looks rather cool. May we get some other camera angles? I do note that you haven\'t reached orbital velocities with it yet, though! You might want to get a better launch vehicle for the thing! .

Yo man, put that picture into a spoiler. Also, 'another stock rocket?' You get more variety when using stock as opposed to mods, usually. Unless using C7\'s old pack, though your packs can be pretty good for variety. EDIT: Also, for some reason, I can\'t see the pictures...

It did...? I\'m around about 95% sure it doesn\'t, I\'ve not got any change in thrust from 0.10.1 (which had the OVR THR), and 0.11 (which had RCS there instead).

Something the size of a small town has almost no gravity. A 2km lump of lead would still have almost no detectable gravity, so you wouldn\'t even notice the gravity, let alone be able to land on it. And as I said, the collision mesh is far too inaccurate to even allow you to land on parts that big without severe inaccuracies.

When you can create your own celestial bodies, why even try making an asteroid part? That\'s pointless... Not to mention, a part that big would have a very, very inaccurate physics model if the visual model isn\'t a literally perfect shape with exactly 256 sides, but that looks incredibly ugly.

I personally think that the little lander should weigh a bit more, and the big ones should weigh a little less but still more than the landing engine. The fuel should also be a little bit heavier when empty (but the same when full) and decouplers should weigh a LOT less. I think that\'d encourage staging without seeming oddly balanced between parts.

I found the engines pretty interesting at first... the big one and the gimballing one have identical efficiency, (you divide the thrust by the fuel consumption) which ends up at 25. The little engine also has a value of 25, however it weighs 4 times less than the others... The little engine is a bit weirdly balanced. I think it\'s weight should be upped just a little bit, but the drag put down (due to the small size) and the actual fuel consumption reduced a little.

I\'m not sure if a plugin could allow you to change SoI into it though as far as the game is actually concerned with the rails system. I do agree though, that a massive part with an SoI isn\'t the best way of doing things. Firstly, the collision mesh would be very limited and considering that the max part size possible is around 2km, then the gravity would have to be unrealistically strong for the size to be able to land on it. 'Simply' adding a SOI is hard. It\'s all tied into the 'Celestial' code stuff. Also I don\'t understand your static and dynamic ship stuff well... you wouldn\'t need that even if you did add it. But trust us... adding this is VERY VERY hard. The soi system works by actually making everything move around you, instead of the other way around. I could imagine this creating some problems. I\'d go as far to say that adding a per-part SoI would take longer than actually released a mod tool to create new planets, and asteroids, and moons.

I can see it, happily! Although, I have to say, it\'s awfully slow... It does demonstrate the sticky-ground bug rather well, though.

Don\'t be silly. The only real way to stage is by using landing legs to clip into whatever you want gone!

You should split this thread into 2, and take out your new parts that require a plugin (or landing legs), and but them in a separate thread, just to follow the rules. Loving your stuff, by the way!

I just wanted to say something about the dart gun; you said that using decouplers wouldn\'t work well... This is not the case. Remember, they are following the same rules we are in real life now. As long as you balance the darts to be light enough, and the bigtrack + dartgun to be heavy enough, then although the same momentum will be applied to both, the dart will go flying off... but the bigtrack won\'t. Why? Because velocity is separate from momentum, so the dart (weighing less) will get much more velocity for the same amount of momentum as the force needs to push less.

I don\'t want to sound pessimistic... but how do we know they are actually on opposing orbits instead of both going the same direction, from the pictures?

Well, that\'s a real heck of an old video; I\'m guessing 0.10. Tim_Barrets needs to return to the present to get persistency!

You know, the wobblyness is intentional... Squad could easily have 'locked' parts, it\'s pretty much as simple as parenting the parts together.

You can get above the speed by adding rocket engines. I don\'t believe it\'s a hard speed limit.

-Orbiter must be in a stable orbit. A stable orbit is, for the purposes of this challenge, defined as 'able to make five complete orbits around the mun without adjustment burns or crashing into terrain.' Why would it need to make five orbits? One would be enough as the Mun has no atmosphere to decay the orbit and orbits don\'t randomly change over time. It\'s possible that you are accounting for the rotation of the Mun which means in one orbit you wouldn\'t crash, while in another you could, but the chances of that are EXTREMELY unlikely unless your orbiter literally skims the ground on one orbit. ...sorry, I kinda raged a bit there! Also, one question - if we hit into the lander, does that mean we 'win'?

That means you modded them, and counts ass a 'cheapass mod' since it\'s overpowered, so this doesn\'t actually fit in with the rules, sadly.

You got that with an unmodded, latest version of the cart? I\'m not sure if that\'s even possible, even the highest aeroplane speeds can\'t reach 1800m/s at ground level. A stock cart shouldn\'t even be able to reach those speeds because of the amount of friction. It is possible to hit those speeds on the mun, but 600m/s cannot be stable because you\'d actually be orbiting, and 1800m/s would put you at 2x the speed of a normal escape trajectory.